Video Thoughts: The Dark Knight Returns I & II

Not to be confused with Chris Nolan’s latest installment of Batman: The Dark Knight Rises this two part animated movie is tightly based on the four part limited series comic books by Frank Miller published in 1986. The comics where issued in what was called (not sure if they still are or not) “prestige format”. Thicker card paper, no ads between the pages and rich painted panels instead of printing ink. The exceptional artwork was done by Lynn Varley. You might remember Frank Miller from other projects of his such as Sin City and 300 (both made into movies). He also lead the post Crisis on Infinite Earths re-vamp of Batman with Batman: Year One and Batman: Year Two.

The story was a whole new concept for me. I’ve always preferred Batman to any of the other heroes in the comic book universes. But this series was something completely different for me. It takes place in a future where Bruce Wayne is nearing 60 and Batman has been retired for 10 years or more. Commissioner Gordon is retiring and medical science has progressed enough that doctors were able to fix Harvey Dent’s (a/k/a Two Face) face and finally let him out of Arkham Asylum. The Joker has been in a coma for more than a decade and all the heroes have quit doing their thing.

There is a history alluded to where some agreement was made between the world’s heroes and the governments. We aren’t really let in on that completely, but we know that Superman still is around and more or less working for the government.

The movies follow the book almost to the letter. One thing I miss is that in the books there is a narrative. A kind of Mike Hammer-ish first person telling of things. This really helps the reader to get into the head and thoughts of Batman. It is missing from the movie. I don’t know why they didn’t include it in the movie – it worked well in the Batman: Year One animated movie adaptation that was released a few years ago.

The artwork in the movies is spot on with the artwork in the books. They didn’t do any updating to the tech from the book either. There are a few scenes where you see people with giant boom boxes (you remember those, right?).

If you like Batman, or animated movies, or can just appreciate great art and great story telling, these videos should be on your “to watch” list.

And, let’s face it, anytime you get to see Batman kick the crap out of Superman, it is a good day!

Movie Thoughts: The Eye

Based on a Chinese movie of the same name (well, except that, the name is in Chinese, instead of English), this movie seems almost typical of horror flicks of late. It seems that gone are the days of Freddy and Jason hacking and slicing up barely dressed, large busted teens (thank gawd), which have been replaced with creepy, hardly seen shadowy, shaky monsters.

The effects are reminiscent of "The Ring" (which I LOVED - being the first of this new style of horror films - at least in the US), though, I think just about anybody could have played the lead role, it seems almost a waste of Jessica Alba's talent. The characters are kind of shallow, but the story is good, even if it is somewhat predictable. I don't even remember ever seeing commercials for this one before, but saw it at the Blockbuster and picked it up anyway (hey, it's got Jessica Alba - who could I NOT pick it up?).

The basic story is, Jessica is a violinist who was blinded at the age of 5. She receives a cornea transplant and is able to see again. But what she sees is not what she expected (queue the 'dum dum duuuummm' music). With her new eyes, she is able to see a kind of thin area between our world, and the next. Where grotesque creatures (who for some reason are really hissy and angry all the time) escort the newly departed (dead) people to where ever they get escorted too.

Now, to me, this isn't one of those "I'll never get that 90 minutes back" movies. However, if I'd never seen it, I wouldn't have missed all that much. It is rather predictable, and I think they spent all their dough getting Alba to play her role. Other than Alba, there really isn't anyone worth noting in the movie.

Movie Thoughts: Cloverfield

I didn't know what this movie was actually about. I had seen the commercials, and the movie promo pictures. You know the ones, where the head of the Statue of Liberty is ripped from it's body, mangled steel beams jutting from it's decapitated body like some sort of metallic veins.

I knew it was a monster movie. And I knew it was created by J.J. Abrams, one of the creative minds behind what I would consider the best television show in recent history; "LOST". But other than that, it was a mystery to me.

This weekend we rented the movie. Some of the boys' friends and cousins who had seen the movie were not impressed with it. But this I learned after I had already rented it, so I was a bit leery of it, not quite knowing what to expect.

The entire movie is shot in POV (point-of-view) style much like the "Blair Witch Project" movie. It was all shot on a hand-held video camera - all shaky and erratic. In addition, no real 'name' stars are in it. Some I kind of think I've seen in something else, but not enough to really recognize. All this combined, with the dark atmosphere, and only momentary glimpses of the monster, made for a very compelling film.

I think the younger generation didn't like it probably because of the lack of gore. But it was well done, and the lack of gore and swearing, only heightened the quality of the film in my view. Any film which can keep you on the edge of your seat, and make you squirm at times, yet still be rated PG-13; that is a testament to a great film.

Maybe I've become an old fogy or something along those lines, but it seems to me that movies to often rely on the shock value to get their point across. The writers and directors are more interested in shocking the audience, than the subtlety of story telling, and dramatic sequences, angles and lighting. Then again, most of the movies the last number of years don't have much of a story to tell. As one guy at work today put it, 'this is the decades of remakes and sequels' and I think he might be right. Although, I would recommend this movie highly, if you like to be kept on the edge of your seat, without having to worry about seeing the kind of blood you might see in the latest Saw, or Hostel installment.

**** Some might consider the following a spoiler, so don't read on if you're afraid to learn the plot (but no outcomes) of the film ***

Cloverfield is, in essence, a retelling of the original Godzilla story. A strange creature come from the sea - at least, it looks like it comes form the sea. Terrorizes and mostly destroys major population area. New York City this time, instead of Tokyo. There is no man in a big rubber monster suit though, nor poorly dubbed soundtrack where people talk entire paragraphs of dialog in one breath. The CGI animation of the monster was incredible. Probably aided by the fact the whole thing takes place at night...over a time span of about eight hours or so.

The question I had to keep putting out of my mind to better enjoy the film was 'where do you get a video camera with a battery that will last that long?'. The whole thing, as stated before, is POV from the camera holder's perspective. I'm guessing the guy must have turned off the camera for long periods of time during the night, because in total, there was only a couple of hours of tape.

Movie Thoughts: Iron Man

What surprised the living begeezus out of me was Mother's Day. The 5/8 requested that the family to and see "Iron Man". Now, she isn't against movies, but her wanting to see a movie, made from a comic book character clad in metal, with ginormous explosions aplenty...well...I'll tell you this, I searched the basement for pods before we left for the theater.

I liked the movie. While I used to collect comics religiously, I never collected much in the way of Marvel comics. I know most of the main characters; Spiderman, Hulk, X Men, Submariner etc. But I've never read them with frequency. So my opinion is somewhat skewed from that of the (as Stan Lee would put it ) 'True Believers'.

When I first heard that Robert Downey, Jr. was playing Tony Stark (Iron Man's alter ego), I wasn't certain how good the movie was going to be. I mean, come on...this is the guy from movies like "Weird Science", "Back to School", "The Pick-Up Artist" and "Less Than Zero". Okay stuff, but certainly not anywhere near the character he took on this time. But then I figured, if anyone can play a hopeless drunkard...he certainly has the real life experience for it.

So, coming from the perspective of one who knows who Iron Man is, and has some idea of his origin and the like, but not being a complete fanboy, I have to say, I thought that movie ROCKED! Almost from the start. It never got slow or boring. And some of the scenes where Stark is upgrading/testing his armor are down right laugh out loud funny.

Of the recent crop of super hero movies, for pure entertainment value, I think I would even put Iron Man above Spiderman. With Iron Man, you have a great concept, but not a gigantic fanboy base like with Spiderman, so they didn't have to spend so much time on the creation, and could spend more time just having fun with it. And it shows.

Even if you're not a super hero movie fan, but like just good raucous fun, this movie is great. You could pretty much walk in at any point, and be entertained by it.

Movie Thoughts: I Am Legend

When I saw the first commercial for this Will Smith flick, what went through my mind was "this is a remake of 'The Omega Man'". I was right.

In this version, a doctor finds a cure for cancer. But the cure comes with a cost...the destruction of man. The cure causes a virus to be released which mutates man and beast alike into carnivorous, cannibalistic beings with a great hunger for human flesh.

Smith is the doctor that stays behind in an empty New York City trying to find a cure.

Why the writers or producers or whomever didn't just name the remake "The Omega Man" is beyond me. The "I Am Legend" title comes from the book that inspired this movie, along with The Omega Man (with Charlton Heston in the lead) and "Last Man On Earth" (with Vincent Price in the lead).

Some of the scenes in Legend are taken directly out of Omega Man (I've never seen "Last Man On Earth"). Near the opening in Omega, Heston visits a car dealership and drives of in a new Mustang. In the opening credits of Legend, Smith is racing around the empty streets of New York City in a new Mustang, hunting deer and trying to avoid the lions.

And the endings were almost exactly the same. Although I just realized there is an alternate ending on the DVD for Legend which I haven't watched yet (that'll teach me to ignore the special features). Supposedly the alternate ending more closely mirrors the book.

If you're a fan of post-apocalyptic-killer-vampire-like-zombie-creature movies, this is a pretty good one. It isn't scary so much, but maybe that is because I already knew the story. I saw the Omega Man the first time when I was just little kid, watching with my mom. I thought Matthias was creepy as hell. And he was much more intelligent than the protagonist vampire-zombie-creature-thing in Legend.

While I liked Legend, after watching it, I'm ready to watch Omega Man again. Don't get me wrong, I like Will Smith, I think he's a great actor...but he is certainly no Charlton Heston.

Movie Thoughts: Across The Universe

I thought this was going to be a real chick flick. I picked it up because I know the 5/8 like those kind of films. I figured it would be some sappy love story set with the turbulent 60's as the backdrop, with a killer soundtrack by The Beatles. That's what the previews let onto anyway.

Now, to be fair, it is a sappy love story, but it isn't a story so much as a musical, with a killer soundtrack of songs by The Beatles. To be honest, the imagery was engaging, and it is a lot of fun to watch a musical where you know the words to all the songs.

It is rated PG-13, and while there was inference of some drug use, it wasn't blatant, and it wasn't all "hey let's get stoned because it's good". The 5/8 and I understood when they took drugs, and the kids figured it out when it went into the drug-induced imagery; including a great segment where Eddie Izzard belts out "For the Benefit of Mr. Kite" which, if you can believe it, was last performed on the big screen by - get this - George Burns.

There was one scene where a woman's nipple was shown, but it was not in anyway obscene or vulgar. And another scene the bums of several guys were shown as they were swimming. All in all, it was not a movie that I had any problem with any of the kids watching - including Little Sister. And it made me want to listen to more Beatles tunes, and even possibly rent that 1970's hit rock-opera"Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band" (you remember, with Peter Frampton and the Bee-Gees).

And, I have to add, that the drug-induced imagery did not hold a candle to the wild and wacked out imagery we get when viewing "Yellow Submarine". That is some crazy stuff man.

Movie Thoughts: Planet Terror

If you're old enough (like me) you'll remember the drive-ins. No, not drive throughs (sheesh, kids) but drive-ins. These were outdoor movie theaters where you'd pull up in your car, grab a tinny sounding staticy speaker from a post and hang it on your partially rolled up car window. Then look around (to make sure the manager couldn't see you) and pop open the trunk, letting out the three or four friends who managed to fit in there.

The movies at the drive-in weren't all that good. In reality, I don't know that people really went to the drive-in to watch the movie. Mostly it was to do other things. Make out, drink, cause general havoc and mayhem for the other patrons. The movies were mostly those "B" type monster films. Evil Dead, Night of the Living Dead, Dawn of the Dead. Corning writing, corny characters and completely predictable. Mostly they were older movies too, and not not such good shape. Scratches and dust marks all over the film, the sound would warble at times. But like I said, you really didn't go to the drive-in to actually view the film.

All this comes back to me now because I recently watched Robert Rodriquez's "Planet Terror". I don't know why I rented it. Probably because on the cover, Rose McGowan was sporting a MACHINE GUN FOR A LEG!!! How crazy is that? Rodriquez was one of the directors behind one of my favorite films of recent years, "Sin City", so that, along with the chick having a machine gun for a leg, made up my mind for me. The movie was a bit more than I expected. I kind of expected that whole "B" movie experience, but really, it is more like a "A" movie, masquerading as a "B" movie - complete with the dust marks and scratches and warbley audio and everything. At one point, the film melts - just like the old days. I can't remember the last time I was in a theater and the film melted. It was awesome.

The movie is utterly and completely over the top in everything it does. It starts out with a faux "Coming Attractions" trailer for a movie called "Machete" during which the announcer declares "If you hire Machete to kill the bad guy, you better make sure the bad guy isn't you." Basic storyline is thus: Bad chemical escapes, people are being turned into zombies, a rag-tag group of people are immune, end up banding together to fight their way to safety.

This isn't a movie where you are going to be surprised, just thoroughly entertained (if you like that over-the-top campy kind of stuff).

Did I mention the lady with the machine gun for a leg?

Movie Thoughts: Where the Red Fern Grows

We watched Where the Red Fern Grows. I put it on our list at Blockbuster.com because it sounded like a good family movie. The kind that are made from old books written for teens and almost-teens, and I was right. The story centers around a young boy in the Oklahoma Ozarks who desperately wants a coon-hunting dog. He works doing odd jobs and somehow, during the depression, manages to scrape together the $50 to get a pair of hounds. He spends years training them and of course they become the best coon-hunting dogs in the area.

One of the things that surprised me was that Dabny Coleman actually played a likeable character. I can't remember the last time I saw Coleman in a role where you actually liked his character. The story was entirely predictable for those of us who have seen 100s of these types of movies in our collective lifetimes. The thing was, it wasn't predictable for the kids, and that is the important part. Even No. 2 Son who barely sat through Transformers, was nigh glued to the story and interested in what was going to happen next.

Movie Thoughts: Transformers

I have to admit, Transformers sounded like it could be a cool movie, but I wasn't so sure it would be. Like Godzilla, and some other gigantic movies before it, the probability was there to just make a complete dud. Way heavy on the special effects, and pretty much nothing else.

While I have never been a huge Transformers fan, in fact, you could say - with a great degree of accuracy - that I didn't really care about the show in the least.

The movie was pretty much what I expected. Heavy on the special effects, light on just about every other aspect of movie making. The plot was typical, two giant races of robots decide earth is a good place to make war on one another. There is, of course, a 'good' race and a 'bad' race. The bad race (decepticons - natch!) want to destroy all humans and re-shape earth to be their new home world, which was destroyed during the first good-guy/bad-guy war. The good guys (autobots - what kind of name is that anyway?) want to save the humans, and co-exist (but in secret - disguised as...autos!) in secret.

At any rate, the movie was good on action scenes, and the special effects were awesome! If you are looking for substance, run, run as fast as you can. But if you are a big fan of awesome CGI and like lots of explosions and the like, it definitely beats Godzilla hands down.

Indy 4

After what seems like nearly a lifetime (actually, more than a lifetime in relation to my kids) that man of adventure is making his return to the silver screen.

According to filmspot.com, "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" is in production for a 2008 release. According to wikipedia, the film is set in 1957, and instead of going up against the Nazis Dr. Jones faces off against the communists of the "Evil Empire."

They say they are keeping the CGI to a minimum. I don't know who well that will work with Harrison Ford being somewhere around 65 years old, but two of the last three movies were exceptional. And I did like watching the "Young Indiana Jones Chronicles" back when Lucas was making those.

Of course, this could always be like the "Star Trek franchise where most fans believe in the 'odd numbered film curse'. That is, all of the odd numbered Star Trek films stink. Perhaps, it is reversed with Indiana Jones, and all of the even numbered films will stink. Only time will tell.

Movie thoughts: Hollywoodland

There is a game we used to play. Well, it isn't a game really, it's more of a...I don't know what to call it. It went like this, we would sit around and offer suggestions for which actor would be best for playing the role of characters in movies. Movies about books, or re-makes of old TV shows, or comics or whatever.

Anyway, the one character I have had the most difficulty with is Mike Hammer. Stacy Keatch was excellent as Hammer on the television shows he did, but he is way too old now.

Mike is your quintessential hard-boiled private eye straight from the pulp dime novels and film noir genre that brought us the likes of Phillip Marlow and Sam Spade. Marlow and Spade were earlier of course, and were translated into films near the height of the film noir genre, both benefiting from the abilities of Humphrey Bogart.

But Mike Hammer never got a good shot at the silver screen. The best Hammer flick I have witnessed to date is "Kiss Me, Deadly" starring Ralph Meeker and a very young, and not to shabby lookin' Cloris Leachman.

Anyway, what I was getting at in the beginning of this whole thing is that I have found a person who could do a justice to the role of Mike Hammer. This actor is one that I would never have thought of on my own in a million years. In fact, I couldn't say that I ever really thought him much of an actor anyway. That guy, is Ben Affleck. Now, I know what you're thinking. You're thinking "Ben Affleck, you mean that guy from Gigli? That guy from Sum of All Fears? That guy who was almost married to J-Lo? WTF????"

I know, I know, I couldn't believe it either. Not only has ne not really 'looked' the part, he's, I mean come on, he's Ben Affleck for crying out loud. However, I did sit down last night at watched "Hollywoodland". Quick synopsis of the film, George Reeves was a somewhat struggling actor. Had a fairly minor part in Gone With the Wind, and a Saturday morning kiddie show as Sir Galahad. He needed the money, so he auditioned for, and was awarded, the part of Superman on the old TV series.

After several years on the show he is hopelessly typecast as Superman, when the show is canceled, he still cannot find work. Eventually, he ends up on his bed with a bullet hole in his head. The question is, was it suicide as ruled by the police, or murder? Reeves mother hires Louis Simo (played by Adrian Brody), a fairly down on his luck PI to investigate.

Affleck plays Reeves, and did it with so much more talent than anything I have seen him in previous to this. The movie is not a pow-pow bang-bang shoot 'em up action film, but neither is it boring. It moves along slowly and methodically, and uses flashbacks to portray periods on Reeve's life. The flashback sequences are well done and only serve to move the story forward.

I am thoroughly surprised this movie was not nominated for an Oscar. Brody, Affleck and especially Diane Lane (who played Reeve's "sugar momma") deserve more recognition than they received. Well worth a watch.

SHEEEEEEEEP

Over the last week or so we have been extravagantly treating ourselves as a family. We actually went to two movies. That's right, count 'em two... and the movie theater. Okay, sure, they were at the buck-an-a-half theater, but still the theater!

Both movies, while I would not have considered them 'must-see-in-the-theater' type of movies, they were fully enjoyable. First we saw "Shrek: The Third" which was at least as good as the first one. I'm not one for sequels really. Seldom does the sequel hold even a candle to the original. But anyone with a newspaper and enough interest to look up in the movie section realizes there isn't much choice this year except for sequels. If I was going to be forced to watch a sequel, I personally would have chosen Fantastic Four. Since that could easily be in the prestigious 'must-see-in-the-theater' category. Special effects movies usually are. And to boot, it has Jessica Alba in it. But unfortunately, she is invisible (what marketing bozo came up with that one?).

But in the end I was not even a little disappointed in Shrek. As I said, it was every bit as funny as the original, and if you were to play close attention, there are even more 'grown-up' gags that the kids just won't be able to understand. These gags, as before, are subtle background items, so they don't leave the kids wondering what the heck is going on. One of my favorite parts was when they played the beginning screams to Led Zeppelin's "Immigrant Song." Sadly, however, they didn't play the whole song.

The other movie was "Evan Almighty". Yes, yet another sequel. In my youth we had George Burns, today's kinder have Morgan Freeman. I don't know if you remember the "Oh God!" movies where George Burns played the Great Almighty, but I loved them. We have watched the first and third ones (you remember "Oh God You Devil" don't you - where Burns played both God and the devil?).

I was very, very hesitant to go and see "Evan" because, well, quite frankly, where "Bruce Almighty" was a great flick, how many times can it be funny to give some everyday Joe Schmoe God's power and watch him make an ass of himself and nearly destroy the world? Happily Evan wasn't like that at all. God tells newly elected Senator Evan to build him an ark because "a flood is coming." Steve Carrell who was Evan the news anchor in Bruce, returns. This man is simply funny with every role I have seen him play.

This week's movie

It has been a while since I saw a really good, funny movie. One that was truly enjoyable to watch, didn't make anyone in the room uncomfortable, and actually made me laugh at loud.

"Wild Hogs" (image stolen from Amazon - please don't sue me fellas! - thanks) is just such a movie. Although it is rated PG-13, other than some vague homosexual (not homophobic) humor and some fairly mild violence, there really isn't anything in the move that could be objectionable. Extremely tame language, no nudity or almost-nudity. No guys ogling or objectifying women.

I believe this movie is as close to laugh-out-loud funny and wholesome as we are going to get in this day and age. The movie stars Tim Allen, John Travolta, William H. Macy, Martin Lawrence and the always hot (but not as hot as you hun) Marisa Tomei. Allen, Travolta, Macy and Lawrence are four middle aged suburbanites who decide to take a cross-country trip on their Harleys.

As one might imagine, four middle aged suburban professionals riding Harleys across the country can and do find themselves in various predicaments. Some strange, all of them funny. It isn't the Jim Carrey slapstick kind of funny either. Each trial they go through, is something you can actually imagine happening in the real world. For those of you who remember "Easy Rider", Peter Fonda's uncredited cameo towards the end really tugs at the heartstrings (ok, not really, but it was cool). I think it is an unwritten rule now, that any move about bikers, or Harleys in general, has to have at least a cameo by Fonda.

Mikey's Back

When I was a kid, a movie came out that we considered a true horror film. This film was so scary and created some of the most intense feelings I had ever experienced in a movie theater. My buds and I probably saw that movie six or seven times while it was at the theater. This was before video tapes (for those of you born after 1980, video tapes were a way to watch movies at home which have since been replaced with DVDs - kind of like audio tapes were a way to listen to music which were replaced by Compact Discs which has been replaced by MP3s - and you say the space program gave us nothing but Tang).

That movie was Halloween. Not only did it introduce us teens to Jamie Lee Curtis (grrroowwwwll) but also Michael Myers (not the Austin Powers Mike Myers - the creepy killer Michael Myers). Since that time there have been umpteen sequels to Halloween. I think the last one had Jamie Lee Curtis in it again. But sadly, since the 5/8 birthday is ON Halloween, and she takes great offense at having her birthday associated with death (like it wasn't Halloween before it was her birthday - sheesh), I have never been able to see it.

Be that as it may, Rob Zombie (Grindhouse, The Devil's Rejects) has re-imagined the Halloween the movie story. Take a look:

I have yet to see Grindhouse (but it is on my list at Blockbuster) - but it looks terrific. Personally, I think if anybody can do a remake of Halloween justice, it is Zombie. I just hope he keeps the Capt. Kirk mask.


This post is brought to you by:
Halloween the movie

No shaken martinis here

Hello again. It has been a pretty good week. The kids were all excited on Friday as each got to wear their Gi to Judo class on Friday. They received them on Wednesday, but they had to be washed at least once before worn. We did learn that to properly dry takes longer than 24 hours though. In case anyone was wondering. The Judo Academy did well last week in Nebraska competition - taking three or four first place slots. They are gearing up now for the Sunflower Games. The middle boy and Little Sister both are looking forward to knowing enough to compete. The teenager isn't so sure about the whole competition thing.

We were able to watch the new James Bond flick - "Casino Royale" - this weekend. I was, in a nutshell, disappointed. It was a good action film in and of itself...but it wasn't a good James Bond film. It was missing that certain James Bond flair that we have come to expect after 20 movies about the iconic secret agent for British spy house MI-6. I don't think I set my expectations too high to guarantee my disappointment. I knew, for instance, that this Daniel Craig fellow was not in any way, shape or form going to be as good a Bond as Sean Connery.

Bond films have always had a certain feel to them. It seems there were some things missing from this film. Namely things that made Bond, Bond. Like loads of beautiful women (there were two), fast cars, Q and his gadgets, and vodka martinis...shaken, not stirred. This seemed a much more politically correct Bond, along the lines of the Timothy Dalton Bond, and not the Bond most of us grew up with.

Gone was that distinctive Bond music that opened all of the other films (with the exception of "Never Say Never Again" - because the makers could not get the rights to the music). They managed to include the theme in the credits, but that music, those blaring of horns, were always the signal of good things to come. Maybe that's why they put it at the end. As if they were saying "don't worry, the next one will be better." Also gone from the opening credits were the silhouetted shapes of curvaceous women - instead we get South Park quality cardboard cutouts of Bond in various stages of fights or shooting his weapon.

Personally, I don't see Craig as a good James Bond. He is a good action figure though, but his face is a bit too...what is the word...mean I think. His appearance is too rough around the edges. He looks like he grew up on the streets and graduated Cum Laud from the University of Hard Knocks. Like he is more of a thug than a thinking man. Bond was always a thinking man. He seemed to have information on just about anything ready when asked. From diamonds to nuclear reactors to hydrofoils, he knew about it all. It was part of his mystique. Craig's appearance would fit better in Tony's crew on the Sopranos, than the fancy glitz and glamor top-dollar drawing rooms Bond frequents. He just doesn't have the right look. Bond always looked as if he was comfortable and right-at-home in his tuxedo. Not like he just got off work as a long shore man.

BTW: Bit of trivia. Most people think the first incarnation of "Casino Royale" was the David Nivens/Peter Sellers spoof of 1967. But the first actual film version of "Casino Royale" was a 1954 television adaptation for the "Climax!" television show. In it Jame Bond was an American spy for the CIA and Leiter was his MI6 liason (role reversal because the hero had to be American - this was American television after all). In it Barry Nelson played James Bond and Peter Lorre played Le Chiffre.

Thanks for visiting. Keep well and safe.







Technorati Tags: James Bond, Casino Royale, David Craig, Judo